Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Subaru Forester

Comments

>> The rest of your post waters things down by comparing Mitsu corporate to FHI. Subaru of America, where both of us live, is on a huge roll...

'Subaru of America' does not build cars. It&#146;s just a marketing office and sales numbers by local market/season may be misleading for the company health. The fact is that worldwide Fuji / Subaru sales decline every year: from 597,000 cars in 2008 to the projected 508,000 in 2010: a significant drop. FHI / Subaru is expecting this year a staggering net loss of 700 billion yen which is about 785 million dollars. Sorry, boys, no money for gadgets and we have to keep the 4 speed tranny for another decade.

>> You don't know about Subaru's diesel?..

Yea, sure, I know. The first time ever Subaru builds diesel: big deal, finally! Mitsubishi has been building them for over 50 years. That&#146;s why Subaru is behind in diesel technology, and I would not recommend this first Subaru pancake.

>> And guess what transmission it had? A 6 speed manual. No pretender, the real thing, with a clutch...

He-he. &#147;Real thing&#148;: the 100 year old technology. Have you ever thought why Lexus and Benz don&#146;t use your &#147;the real thing&#148; in their luxury SUVs? Or why did you purchase your Forester with crappy 4-speed auto instead of &#147;the real thing&#148;?

>> modern NAV Really? What you haven't disclosed is the fact that your 2007 model had maps from way back in 2005, and that wasn't updated until 2009. 4 year old map data. That's pathetic. Modern? Try ancient...

Why are you talking about 2007 Outlander model? &#147;That's pathetic&#147;: in 2007 Forester did not have ANY navigation while Outlander already had hard-drive based navigation: first in the class. Now we are talking about the current 2010 model navigation, which comes with Diamond Lane Guidance, fast hard-drive based map access, free Real Time Traffic, voice activated 40GB music server, and backup camera.

>> Get a Kenwood instead. You called Subaru's stereo "generic", no realizing that's actually an advantage. It's a standard double-DIN opening. Anything fits, generic size, like you said. Get one of these for 1/3rd of the cost of OEM Navi...

Yea, Do It Yourself, that&#146;s the way to go with Subaru. Buy your own stereo, navigation, Xenons, satellite accessory, backup camera. And don&#146;t forget to get that &#147;fuse&#148; at RadioShack for your AWD. Wow, not having anything in Subaru is actually &#147;advantage&#148;. Yea, it&#146;s like buying a house with bare walls and finishing it yourself. Sure, I see the advantage.

>> Outlander GT starts at $31 grand, for cloth and no Navi People are not looking for an economy-branded compact crossover for more than $30 large. At that price it makes more sense to buy Mercedes, BMW, or some other luxury make. The Outlander GT with leather and Navi costs $33 grand, and by then people aren't even considering Mitsubishi...

No. MSRP aside, after the first 3-4 month the GT will become available, I expect its street price to be $30K or less fully loaded (excluding rear entertainment system). The comparably equipped smaller MB GLK would cost you $44K: FAST Key option alone costs over $1000. The comparably equipped Audi Q5 and Benz ML350 will cost you $53-56K plus tax, so the GT will be a steal at 30K.

But if you use your own Do It Yourself approach, you can steal Forester for even less than that. Some of that stuff you can get on eBay cheaply, making in the mean time some Subaru bux. Another benefit would be that an aftermarket accessory failure would not count for Consumer Reports survey and Forester will remain on the top of reliability charts.

Available on 1books.com for only $2.62 used, plus earn 3% in Subaru bux:

Comparing Outlander with GLK and Q5 is lame. One is a economy class car and other a luxury brand. People tend to conveniently ignore that with GLK, Q5 and other luxury car, you get a better engine, better interior, better sound proofing, and overall a better ride. GLK has a powerful and smooth 3.5 V6. Does Outlander has that? Yes it has a V6, but a SOHC 3.0 V6 which is nothing to write about. And engine is a heart of any car. The last time I test drove it, I remember it was loud (I guess being a SOHC), rough and was lacking in low end torque. Yes mitsu saved money in building a decent V6 for Outie and cut corners in interior quality and instead invested in gadgets which to me and probably for many other consumers is not important in a small SUV.

All major car makers can put the gadgets in a small SUV that Outlander has. Its not about having the capability. Its about what package appeals to most of the consumers and able to sell it in numbers. Mitsubishi followed a different route with Outlander and to me it seems that they did not quite succeed (sales are very low even after full 3 years). If that was'nt the case then Rav4 and CRV won't be at the top. Heck in terms of gadget a basic kia model has bluetooth, mp3 player, aux jack etc etc and they really market it that way since they really have nothing to write about in other areas.

Lets see how many Outlander GT is Mitsubishi able to sell in North America in 2010.

For the timing being, expect Subaru's hot streak to continue. Mori has increased Subaru's annual sales forecast by 37,000, to 548,000 vehicles, and now expects to record sales of 204,000 in the U.S. Like all Japanese exporters, Subaru is still hampered by the strong yen, but the company at least expects a small operating profit for the six months through March 2010. It previously projected a $390 million loss.

Right now the only reason they may not match 2009 sales is short supply. Subaru had a 15 day supply of cars on its lots after C4C. The only struggle right now is for supply to catch up to demand.

Admit it, you did not know about Subaru's diesel engine. Otherwise why did you mention it on your list of things Subaru doesn't offer that Mitsubishi does?

Have you ever thought why Lexus and Benz don&#146;t use your &#147;the real thing&#148; in their luxury SUVs?

Because those aren't the sportier manufacturers in that segment. BMW offers a true manual in the X3. RX350? Please...I own a Toyota, they're as far from sporty as you can get. Competent in other ways, sure.

in 2007 Forester did not have ANY navigation

Portables are better anyway, you're not stuck with outdated maps. When will they offer the next update, 2013? I wonder if you rent an Outlander (or one of its clones) in Europe if it still says East/West Germany, or maybe USSR? LOL

Portables also offer Bluetooth and lane guidance, and 3 things the Outlander's expensive system does not:

* frequent updates* 3 choices for traffic, including a free one with no subscription* text-to-speech

Your 2007 Outlander did not have heated mirrors. And don't say you didn't care - because you said that was an important feature that you missed. Subaru had that 7 years sooner. Subaru added Navi the same year Mitsu added heated mirrors. After all, AWD is for snowy climates, and I'd rather see out my side mirrors than get directions from 4 year old maps:

Make a left on to the Road That Doesn't Exist Any More...

Not to mention all the businesses that closed (or opened) from 2005 to 2009.

stereo, navigation, Xenons, satellite accessory, backup camera

All that stuff just lowers your residual and ends up increasing ownership costs disproportionately. Plus they push the GT in to a lease payment that would get you a Benz or BMW - which is what you did.

While I agree that the GLK and the Outlander are not likely to be cross-shopped, I will take issue with some of your statements about the engines.

GLK: 3.5L, 268HP = 76.6 HP/LOutlander: 3.0L, 230HP = 76.7 HP/L

Power output/displacement is a wash so you can't really say the Benz engine is more advanced. It's just bigger. No advantage to MB there except for the "more is better" argument. Which is fine until you have to put gas in it:

GLK: 16 city/21 highway/18 combinedOutlander: 18/24/20

Even brand new the GLK would have qualified as a clunker WRT fuel economy. That's not good. The Outlander gets 11-14% better fuel economy & will be less expensive to drive than the GLK. The GLK's gas tank is almost 2 gallons larger so their driving ranges are pretty similar.

BTW, this is a revised version of the 3L V6 so the NVH you experienced may not be there anymore. It certainly hasn't been a factor in my Mitsu's 10 year old 3L V6; with 152K on the clock it's still silky smooth.

I'm sure the GLK has better interior materials than the Outlander. I won't try to argue that point. But the Outlander has more passenger space by every measurement - hip, leg, head, and shoulder room. The GLK has more luggage capacity with the second row seats up but the Outlander bests it with the second (& third row, which the GLK doesn't offer) down by 18 cubic feet. Speaking of second row seats, the Mitsu's fold flat to the cargo floor; the GLK's do not. So good luck hauling those long, flat items without bending them.

(All data is from the Edmunds specs pages for the 2010 V6 AWD models.)

Regarding sales, yes, time will tell. Mitsu has problems there with brand recognition and with very limited advertising dollars. With those combined it will be hard to attract sufficient attention. They also have a relatively small dealer network nationally (although they're represented fine in my area - Chicagoland).

Personally, I'm comparing the Outlander XLS to the GT. Same engine but different AWD system. Optioned similary the GT is a bit more expensive and I'm not sure the better AWD system is worth the extra cost. I'll drive both and see.

You may be right, although I thought C4C used the revised numbers. In the end it doesn't matter. My point was that the GLK is thirsty by comparison and even when cruising - where quickness doesn't come into play - the Outlander beats it handily when it comes to economy. With a 7-speed auto and that engine, the GLK really should have come with a really tall highway gear; that would have allowed for much better mileage. The 2010 RAV4 with 4WD and Toyota's similar-speced 3.5L V6 gets 19/26/21 out of a 5 speed auto.

Anyway, we shouldn't be comparing the Mitsu (or the Forester) to the Audi, MB, or RAV4 as I just did :blush: in this thread. Let's keep to just the Forester v. Outlander.

Leasing has never appealed to me. I don't want perpetual payments even if it does mean I get a new ride every three or so years. My '99 was paid off in '01 so I've been sans payment for over 8 years. The trade-off of driving a car with more miles on it is well worth the many thousands of dollars I've saved. Although I will admit I now drive only around 7K miles a year so I wouldn't have to live in fear of a mileage penalty on a lease.

Hmm. When I tried the Compare link it came up with the RDX and Sante Fe in addition to the Forester.

Comparing Outlander and GLK does not make much sense especially in terms of fuel economy and that was my whole point. Any luxury car will be thirsty on fuel due to more weight and an engine that is geared more towards performance than economy. Rav 4 V6 and Outlander XLS is a more appropriate comparison. And even here Rav 4 beats Outie hands down in terms of fuel economy and power.

In V4 version too both CRV and Rav4 beats Outlander in fuel economy and power. Where Outlander shines is its smooth 6 speed tranny which none of its competitors have except for CX-7. The 6 speed in Outie is also pretty reliable too as I have not heard of any issues in this forum. I wish they would have paired that 6 speed with a bigger and refined V6.

Mitsu's site listed BMW and Subaru. Maybe I didn't scroll to the right enough? Or were you talking about Edmunds?

Any how, Mitsu is certainly ambitious if they list BMW and Acura.

Anyone who wants to spend $33k on a Subie can get an Outback 3.6R Limited with Navi, and that gets a backup cam with trajectory lines (does Outlander have those?), big engine power, and a huge 8" Nav screen that is eye candy. It even takes voice commands. A USB port is standard and will charge and play iPod tunes, too.

Good luck finding one right now, though, 'cause they're on back order.

That system will trickle down to the Forester - but I still say OEM nav is grossly overpriced and not updated often enough.

Subaru is better than most here - the Forester's been out for just over a year and already they offer a map update. I think the Tribeca (out longer) has had 3 updates since 2006.

Still - I live in the DC area near the ICC, and they just opened the first portion. It'll finish only in Jan 2011, opening in phases. Unless your maps are current, those routes will be ignored completely. For me that would be totally useless - even with traffic.

I just upgraded to a new Garmin and I'm still playing with all the gadgets, but my initial impression is that this makes much more sense for about 1/10th the cost (with bluetooth, traffic, text-to-speech, etc.).

>> Admit it, you did not know about Subaru's diesel engine. Otherwise why did you mention it on your list of things Subaru doesn't offer that Mitsubishi does?

I can&#146;t admit that, because I told you about Subaru first diesel development on this very board over a year ago. This time I did not say that &#147;Subaru doesn't offer&#148; diesel, but I&#146;ve said however that Subaru is &#147;behind in key technologies: AWD, transmission, diesel, hybrid, plug-in electric&#148;.

>> In 2007 Forester did not have ANY navigation - Portables are better anyway

You did not buy portable radio for you Forester : -) We all know that well integrated GPS is more then navigation. It&#146;s touch screen control for car settings, satellite radio, music server, stereo, backup camera, phone book, phone dial pad, etc. And it does not constantly fall off your windshield. : --) But of course if you did not make enough subaru bux, you can get a cheap Nav on eBay.

>> Your 2007 Outlander did not have heated mirrors... Subaru had that 7 years sooner.

>> 3 things the Outlander's expensive system does not: * frequent updates * 3 choices for traffic, including a free one with no subscription * text-to-speech

How do you know? Did you read a user guide for the 2010 Outlander? Or you are talking again about 2007 Outlander? Once more , in 2007 Forester did not ANY navigation, while Outlander got hard-drive based with music server. Did you actually realize that you comparing Outlander electronics with aftermarket options? Is the Subaru electronics really that bad? I guess it is.

>> All that stuff just lowers your residual and ends up increasing ownership costs disproportionately.

You keep talking about &#147;residuals&#148;, but I don&#146;t care for some &#147;residuals&#148;. I don&#146;t count pennies, I just like to drive nice cars at fair price.

No defection here. This is not a religion nor political movement for me, and thanks god I am not enslaved by Subaru bux, so I can try a different car every few years. You can&#146;t do that: you are stuck with you Subaru bux and with 4 speed tranny.

Sure, GLK and GT are in different leagues, but it worth mention that the GLK has power liftgate, but GT on the other hand has unique Bluetooth streaming audio, larger 10" subwoofer (vs. 7.8"), 710 watt amplifier vs. 540, and much better handling.

If that's the case please explain why you think the Outlander's diesel engine is better than the Forester's diesel engine. That will keep us on topic.

it does not constantly fall off your windshield

Nor does my portable - I use vent mounts. They're very secure and that brings the touch screen much closer than any built-in GPS system.

And maps were never 4 years old.

Seriously, what good is Bluetooth if the POI database (points-of-interest for GPS newbies) is so grossly outdated? And even if an update came for 2009, when it the next one? In 2007 Mitsu gave you maps from 2005, how recent are the new maps?

Your 2007 Outlander did not have heated mirrors

You said "nope".

I respond - Yep. Your 2007 Outlander did not have heated mirrors.

You criticize me for talking about an older model right after you criticized the Forester for not having Navi on older models. Then you did it again:

in 2007 Forester did not ANY navigationFalse - they had it in JDM models.

I'm getting to the point where I start skimming the posts if they're just going back and forth with long posts that are debating things I honestly don't care much about. For instance, I don't really care if the '07 Outlander had heated mirrors as I'm looking solely at the '10 model. My '99 Galant has them and while nice it's hardly a gotta-have-it feature to me even though I live in Chicagoland where we get plenty of snow/frost.

ateixeira, re: 40GB HD music server. Mitsu's site says it stores 2000 songs. See Key Features at the site: http://www.mitsubishicars.com/MMNA/jsp/outlander/10/index.do?loc=en-us Given the size of MP3 files, say 5MB per, that would work out to about 10GB for music. Not sure what the rest is for; perhaps they're simply being conservative or the 2K songs is a software limitation. Or maybe 30GB HDs are simply no longer available from their OEM (although I'd think 32GB of Flash would be pretty cheap).

Also, the Outlander's nav does now include subscription-free traffic reporting as well as lane guidane (which lots of GPS units have nowadays). Personally, I already have a Magellan portable w/traffic reporting so I don't need built-in nav. FTM my Palm Pre has SprintNav/Telenav GPS which seems to work fine as well although it sucks battery like nobody's business.

FWIW the Outlander has USB input as well and can also accept songs streamed to it via Bluetooth.

Unfortunately, I've not seen that the user manuals are online anywhere so I can't confirm about the copying of MP3 files.

So far I've never been convinced to pay for satellite radio. Not saying I wouldn't enjoy it; just that it would definitely take a trial period before I'd agree to pay for it. I like very little new music and there are an adequate number of classic rock stations to keep my ears busy. Cars are expensive enough that another monthly fee isn't something I'd look forward to.

As to Magellan v. Garmin, that was easy. I took my wife to Fry's and had her play with them. She liked the Magellen UI the best. So once she picked the make I picked the model (Maestro 4350). It was an easy way to avoid confrontation.